It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Judeo-Christian God evil?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If you dont think Moses wrote the Torah then you disagree with Jesus:
John 7
19 “Did not Moses give you the Law . . .”
Moses could have had a law, then someone wrote about it.
What I mean is the books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Jesus didn't say Moses wrote those books.



Lol there are times were they quote or reference those books and credit then to Moses. Look you believe what you want I have talked with you enough to realize our conversations will go no where




posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Lol there are times were they quote or reference those books and credit then to Moses.
Feel free to mention those when you run across them.
And as a comment on Mark 12:26, before anyone says anything, Adela Yarbro Collins says that "book of Moses" is the equivalent of "Law of Moses". So even is it has the word book in it, it doesn't necessarily mean a specific book, it is just a reference to the body of the law attributed to Moses.
I'm just saying, if Moses wrote any books, they would have been in hieroglyphics.
They wouldn't be the same thing that we have now, not even close.
And, beyond that, I don't think that Moses is a real historical character but is a sort of fable to explain where the Law came from.
Jesus brings up Moses in order to condemn the leadership of Judea for not understanding, that there was scripture, and that it should have prepared them to accept him.
edit on 18-5-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Lol there are times were they quote or reference those books and credit then to Moses.
Feel free to mention those when you run across them.
And as a comment on Mark 12:26, before anyone says anything, Adela Yarbro Collins says that "book of Moses" is the equivalent of "Law of Moses". So even is it has the word book in it, it doesn't necessarily mean a specific book, it is just a reference to the body of the law attributed to Moses.
I'm just saying, if Moses wrote any books, they would have been in hieroglyphics.
They wouldn't be the same thing that we have now, not even close.
And, beyond that, I don't think that Moses is a real historical character but is a sort of fable to explain where the Law came from.
Jesus brings up Moses in order to condemn the leadership of Judea for not understanding, that there was scripture, and that it should have prepared them to accept him.


Like I said believe what you want, but in most peoples minds it is crazy.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You don't find it a bit crazy to believe books written by a man over 3k years ago?




posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60


TextDo you ever read actual Bible commentaries? I think maybe you don't have a good perspective on what is considered serious inquiry in academic biblical scholarship. Or do you think that is all just so much "secularism"?

Yes I do but not from the book sellers of the cults that write your diatribe.

But that is not the issue in this post. The point taken was that you do not fully answer a question and try to use your own philosophy to divert an understandable answer.

Here is a typical diversion. I asked you a question which was -"I thought we were discussing Biblical Theology?"
Here is your answer. "Do you think that the Bible itself is a theological work? "

Your answer was a question and not an answer - I purposely kept the subject matter as one discussion but you once again try diversion.

Seede wrote - “Everything that exists was created by God and John 1:3 verifies that nothing exists without God creating it.”
jmdewy answered - “It doesn't say that. It is saying that everything that was created was created through the Logos.”

Seede wrote “Everything that exists was created by God and John 1:3 verifies that nothing exists without God creating it.”
jmdewy answered “It doesn't say that.” “It does not exclude the idea that there could be things that were not created.”

Seede wrote "I now understand you a little more than I did before. You have inferred that God did not create all things that exist contrary to what the Apostle John teaches. You lead me to believe that there are substances that God used to create that were already present before He created this universe."
No answer ---------------------

Seede wrote - "Do you understand what the Logos in this scripture actually means?"
jimdewy answered - "I think I do."

Seede wrote -"Logos is Greek The Word – Meaning “The Word of God”, by which this universe was created."
jmdewy answered - "That is your interpretation. Logos means, by the short definition, word."

jmdewy wrote -"But at the time that John was written, it was widely used with the philosophical connotation of an underlying principle that moves things toward a certain goal, like the primal mover."

Seede answers - "The primal mover being WORD. If Logos is Word and Word is God then Primal mover is WORD or GOD. Logos, Word and God are all one."

jimdewy wrote - "The gospel writer here is taking the word and using it in a sense that would be relevant to Jewish understanding of the scriptures, where it mixes in with Genesis and Exodus, and the Prophets,"

Seede answers - " Absolutely John is using the WORD in the sense that would be relevant to Jewish understanding. What else would be John's purpose? After all he is a Jewish author with Jewish understanding. John does not need commentaries to understand his WORD (GOD)."

jimdewy wrote and diverts the entire unanswered post - "like the earlier gospel of Mark, that starts out like Genesis, saying "In the beginning" but the beginning that starts with John the Baptist fulfilling prophecy. When John says, light of the world, he means (jmdewy's opinion of course) the giving of the Law and the Prophets, but it was not fully accepted.
That is the Logos in action, taking the shape of the light as the manifestation of God's will."

Seede answers - "The light of this world is Jesus who is of God (LOGOS)."

John_8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John_9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

jimdewy wrote - "And it does not mention "the universe". Again, that is your interpretation. It says, whatever was created, those things, were created through the Logos, which is John clarifying that the Logos is not some esoteric mystery that you have to be a philosopher to understand, and is in practical terms, something all Jews would recognize as a matter of course because of their religion."

Seede answered - " It does not have to mention the universe again. The entire creation is either the celestial creation or the terrestrial creation. We have no knowledge of any other creation. In this meaning of John 1:1-4, he is referencing the terrestrial creation which is this entire universe. John does not use the word Logos. That is a diversionary tactic that comes from you and your books.

Seede wrote - "Re read John 1:1-4 and try to understand the basic concepts of Christianity which you really do not have."

jmdewy answerd -"You have no idea how many thousands of times I have "reread" those verses.
I think what you mean is: according to Christian theology which interprets those verses to support their doctrines.
I already fully understood those "concepts" forty five years ago, and it has taken that long to disentangle myself from those philosophies."

Seede answers - "Yes that is exactly what I mean. Christian Theology. When I open a KJV bible I naturally expect to read and try to understand Judaic, and Christian theology and history. I now understand your point in diversity. You have divorced yourself from that philosophy, just as you have stated, and are rewriting your own religion from that philosophy. That is called being double minded. No further discussion is needed or expected. Have a good life.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

All I need is John 1:1-3

Clearly defines the Word (Christ) as with the Father and who was also of the God family. You can debate me on my interpretation all you like, but it is my own understanding of the passage. If God was a single entity, there would be no reason to split himself apart. Of course that's not the only place in the bible there is a separation. Christs own prayer to the Father, defines the Father as a separate being. Why would you pray to yourself?

I also don't see how your scriptures prove anything except that Christ was the firstborn. This just proves that the Father had planned for His son, before the concept of time immemorial, to die for us. It was planned long ago for Christ to be our savior, master, and leader.
edit on 18-5-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Like I said believe what you want, but in most peoples minds it is crazy.
Who are "most People"?

I would say that "most People" couldn't care less about Moses either way, being Indian and Chinese where the Old Testament is not high on anyone's agenda.
How "crazy" is it that Moses wrote about his own death?
Deuteronomy 34:5-7
And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to his day no one knows where his grave is. Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Aedaeum


Text All I need is John 1:1-3 Clearly defines the Word (Christ) as with the Father and who was also of the God family. You can debate me on my interpretation all you like, but it is my own understanding of the passage. If God was a single entity, there would be no reason to split himself apart. Of course that's not the only place in the bible there is a separation. Christs own prayer to the Father, defines the Father as a separate being. Why would you pray to yourself? I also don't see how your scriptures prove anything except that Christ was the firstborn. This just proves that the Father had planned for His son, before the concept of time immemorial, to die for us. It was planned long ago for Christ to be our savior, master, and leader.

Without throwing a bunch of scriptures at you-- Christ (Jesus) was never THE WORD simply because Jesus did not exist in the beginning of either the celestial or the terrestrial creations. In the beginning of all creation was the celestial creation first and that is believed by some of the ancients as meant by "In the beginning." It was in the beginning of creation that, while God is total spirit and invisible to His creation, He brought forth His visibility to His creation called WORD. God did not split Himself as so many believe but has two fold of understanding the same as all people have two fold of themselves.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

The Jesus doctrine explains this as meaning that God is total spirit and that this Spirit is His likeness. God created people in His likeness which is with a portion of His Spirit of life. God also said "Let us make man in our image" meaning the visibility of that spirit. The difference being that God created our image from the terrestrial material while His image is naturally Himself (Spirit). You are a human and you consist of God's likeness (Spirit) and Image (terrestrial visibility).

As you decide to go to the store, your spirit dictates what the body (Image) will do. That is if the body is capable of performing the task. When you decide to do something it is the spirit that controls the action and regardless of whether you are silent or say it aloud the spirit always makes the decision. This same thing applies to God in this Genesis account. God had decided to act upon a creation. That act is to create people and it is recorded that this ONE GOD has said to Himself "Let us make man." His visibility then acted upon His Holy Spirit and created as THE WORD.



Text If God was a single entity, there would be no reason to split himself apart. Of course that's not the only place in the bible there is a separation. Christs own prayer to the Father, defines the Father as a separate being. Why would you pray to yourself?

To better understand this you should realize that Jesus was not God the Father while He was Jesus. Jesus was begotten from the Father but was not the Father God.

John_20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.



Text I also don't see how your scriptures prove anything except that Christ was the firstborn. This just proves that the Father had planned for His son, before the concept of time immemorial, to die for us. It was planned long ago for Christ to be our savior, master, and leader.

The scriptures tell us that Jesus was the first born of the terrestrial creation. Not the celestial creation. First born means that Jesus was the first of the flesh of man to resurrect from the terrestrial substance to the celestial substance (experience re birth). Jesus was not Jesus in the beginning of the celestial creation. When (Jesus) returns to this earth He returns as THE WORD OF GOD. We are given the name Jesus for our understanding but it is God Himself (WORD) which returns to this earth. Not arguing but simply trying to explain my own belief as I was taught.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Yes I do but not from the book sellers of the cults that write your diatribe.
If you knew me, you would realize that I am about the most independent thinker that you would ever want to meet.
No one writes my "diatribes", they all come right out of my own head.
If I belong to a cult, it would be Seventh Day Adventist, but if you know anything about those beliefs, you would realize how far I deviate from them.

. . . you do not fully answer a question and try to use your own philosophy to divert an understandable answer.
I have plenty of time to take questions, not having a busy schedule or anything, so feel free to point out any deficiencies in my posts.

Here is a typical diversion. I asked you a question which was -"I thought we were discussing Biblical Theology?"
Here is your answer. "Do you think that the Bible itself is a theological work? "
It makes perfect sense to me.
You look as if you have a restrictive view as to what you consider an acceptable answer, so I am asking if you expect nothing but a bunch of Bible quotes without any sort of explanation as to what they mean or how they apply to the question.

Your answer was a question and not an answer - I purposely kept the subject matter as one discussion but you once again try diversion.
Because you are being very vague.

I purposely kept the subject matter as one discussion but you once again try diversion.
It may help to point out what that subject is.

Seede answers - "The light of this world is Jesus who is of God (LOGOS)."
Please explain this, then:
John 3:11
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
(2011 NIV)
This sounds an awful lot like the first letter of John.

Where it normally is translated in John 1:14 that the Logos dwelt "among" us, it literally says "in" us.
So it looks like Jesus is saying the same thing to Nicodemus, that it is him and his disciples who were given this special enlightenment to the truth.

John_8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John_9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
He narrows down the definition of what he means.
It has an expiration date, while the use of that term in chapter one is in another context.

Seede answers - "Yes that is exactly what I mean. Christian Theology. When I open a KJV bible I naturally expect to read and try to understand Judaic, and Christian theology and history. I now understand your point in diversity. You have divorced yourself from that philosophy, just as you have stated, and are rewriting your own religion from that philosophy.
This "philosophy" as you call it, is how the King James version was translated, which was under orders from the King, now the head of the Church of England, to support all the doctrines that had already been established.
I am "rewriting my own religion" based on the philosophy of the writers of the Bible, without the spin put on it in the mainstream translations.
edit on 18-5-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

. . . He brought forth His visibility to His creation called WORD.
And you are basing this on . . what?
If you think the Bible supports that, you should think again.
Are you basing this on the questionable translation of John 1:14?
What do you think this says?

Kai ho Logos sarx egeneto

To me, it says, "and the Logos to mankind (spiritual enlightenment) came . . ."

I realize that the usual mainstream translation says that the "word became flesh" but I have to think that it was specifically translated in that interpretive way to support the doctrine of the Trinity.

Without throwing a bunch of scriptures at you-- Christ (Jesus) was never THE WORD simply because Jesus did not exist in the beginning of either the celestial or the terrestrial creations.
I wish that you would, throw out a bunch of verses.
Do you even have "a bunch of verses"?
I seriously think that you are treading on the ground of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

And so far you have not provided a biblical explanation for there being these two separate "creations".

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
That just means that there is a model, and to make man after that model.
We are dealing with an archaic language, and they said things differently than we do today, especially in Hebrew, where they repeat things for emphasis.
It means that we are not the way we are by accident.
edit on 18-5-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I think we can conclude with certainty, by the discussions going on in this thread, that each of us have our own interpretation of the scriptures. This proves yet again that the bible is of a subjective nature, not a literal one. Any further debate over what any of us believes is simply a contest of opinion, rather then truth. Neither of us can prove our own beliefs to one another, any more then we can prove God exists to an Atheist. We have faith, we try to overcome our shortcomings as human beings, and we strive to promote the lightness of our Father through our character.

What matters most, is not the technical nature of how things came to be or to what end, but the over-arching message that the bible conveys. It is of unconditional Love and how humans have continued to vitiate everything that our heavenly Father stands for. Human beings are the antithesis of Divinity; it is a constant battle to keep ones thoughts and actions in subjection. We are fighting a war, which starts in the mind then trickles throughout our members. If we're not careful, we commit acts of abuse against our brothers and sisters alike, even our own selves.

So... I am taking my leave from this topic as nothing more can be gained or expressed, which would not fuel misguided passion. I whole heatedly appreciate your various perspectives; they inspire new thought avenues in my own search for truth, which is invaluable. Thank you. I'll see you all, around the forum



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



Text Is hell an eternity in hellfire? Hell is separation from the presence of God. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Depends upon what you want to believe. I believe that hell is a geographical place in this earth just as is taught by the doctrine of Christ Jesus. Yes it is separation from God and should also be realized that it is separation from the celestial realm. Hell is a terrestrial realm of existence of the spirit of the soul. Scriptures do define hell as being hell fire but this is contested by many as a Metaphor.

Metaphor or Parable or Hyperbolic is the modern way of saying "That is not what it means" or "Your just making that up"-- That is the easy way of saying that "I am not a linguist but I know better than those translators". People simply rewrite the bible to their liking and are unteachable or perhaps they seek, and at times find, a rendition of scriptures to suit their beliefs. The translators of the KJV bible have translated, in the NT, hell fire as meaning hell fire. Now what you and I add to that is not relevant to the translation but simply our own belief.

According to the KJV bible it is recorded that Jesus repeatedly said "hell fire" in regards to certain sinners. I can read into that what I want to believe but that is not what is recorded. Just as Revelation records that hell will be cast into the lake of fire or that those in the lake of fire are there forever. I can also read into that with my own belief. But then to say that all of the many references to hell or lake of fie are Parabolic or Metaphoric is actually ridiculous. That is a lame excuse to insert my belief. I can expound on "hell fire" by other peoples commentaries but that may or may not be the authors intent and I could be completely wrong. So to be honest I should say that "I believe" and give the reason for that belief.

My understanding as I read the KJV bible is that hell fire does exist in this earth and will eventually be cast into the celestial lake of fire. That is what the KJV bible tells me in English. If I can't believe that translation then I would not trust the rest of what it tells me.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Metaphor or Parable or Hyperbolic is the modern way of saying "That is not what it means" or "Your just making that up"-- That is the easy way of saying that "I am not a linguist but I know better than those translators".
That is just really weird.
Whether it is metaphorical or not has nothing to do with the translation.
It does have everything to do with how you interpret it.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
This original post will not be very lengthy, but that is because I would like to start a discussion on whether or not God is Evil. I will ask some questions give a brief response, answer those questions and then please list whatever you feel backs up your perspective on the text, and the character of God.

The first question I want to ask is can God murder someone? In my opinion, no because if God is real he is the giver of life, and therefore can justifiably take it at any point in time simply because when you die here you don't end you just change locations.


Couldn't parents use this logic to kill their children? I.E. They gave that child it's life, and therefore can justifiably take it at any point in time.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Is hell an eternity in hellfire? Hell is separation from the presence of God. If you don't want God in this life why would you want him in the next? Hell is a choice. I believe that the reference to hellfire are metaphors describing how it feels to be separated from God completely. This in my opinion is where I belong. I am by no means perfect, and by no means of myself should I be allowed to go anywhere else.

If there is a hell, and it is an eternity of torment, it would take an extremly twisted mind to creat it... Much less send it's supposed children there.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Can a good God let evil exist? Yes. If there is an objective good, then there must be an objective evil. Free will is good, I do not believe anyone can deny that, but if free will exist that means one can choose to do evil rather than good.


If god were truly good and loving there would be no need for evil. God is supposedly all powerful, yet it seems powerless to stop evil.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
In my opinion, God is the only one that is good. Why do so many seem to think he is Evil, give me some of your opinions, and maybe we can discuss it.



I personally find the god of Abraham a reprehensible, vile representation of all that is wrong with humanity. The reason I feel this way is from reading the bible (all of it, not just the hallmark moments). Using the excuse that is god's will to commit atrocities is just as bad as the Nazis during WW2 just following orders... It doesn't sit well with me.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AgnosticDeity


Text If god were truly good and loving there would be no need for evil.

Yep, you are right. God has been there and done that. After God created this creation, including Adam and Eve, everything was good. That is what the bible says . Not a bit of sin in the creation and God was loving and good just like you wanted. What changed? Was it God or His creation?



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

What changed?
Don't you think that there was some sort of preexisting underlying problem that caused basically an immediate breakdown?
Maybe there was something wrong with the clay that Adam was made out of.
Why did The Lord curse the earth instead of Adam?


edit on 20-5-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede
Well I can't speak for the god of Abraham, but if I were to take my children and put them in a room with something I didn't want them to have they would run directly for said object... It seems to me that this god fellow had an obvious lapse if judgement by placing the tree of knowledge in easy reach of his children... I mean I'm obviously not the creator of the known universe and even I know to child proof my house.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: AgnosticDeity




Text a reply to: Seede Well I can't speak for the god of Abraham, but if I were to take my children and put them in a room with something I didn't want them to have they would run directly for said object... It seems to me that this god fellow had an obvious lapse if judgement by placing the tree of knowledge in easy reach of his children... I mean I'm obviously not the creator of the known universe and even I know to child proof my house.

Exactly right. That is the logical thing for you to do.
And that is exactly why God did the opposite from what you would do. He put them in that garden with the very thing that He wanted them to have. God wanted them to have knowledge so he put knowledge in front of them knowing that they would partake of this knowledge. If God did not want them to have knowledge of good and evil, then He would have done exactly what you have said you would do for your children. God did not want His children to remain ignorant. He wanted to teach them.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
So in other words God is incapable of evil? Then that right there nullifies him as almighty God by any standards. If you are truly good, then your creation which is an extension of yourself, God man in our image, never got the "our" part means he must exhibit all human emotions and we could never have sinned in the first place.... Assuming of course that version of God is real...



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60




Text Why did The Lord curse the earth instead of Adam?

Adam was punished for disobedience and that punishment was to deprive him of the beauty and tranquility of the garden. This was restored in New Jerusalem in heaven.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join